/fa/ - Fashion

>>5943512
>using greentext AND quotation marks

>>5943528

>contributing this much

from the /fa/ ED article 1/2


Fashion Wars

Just like console wars on /v/, only with clothing. Personal investment, crippling aspergers, and a limited allowance mean that every /fa/ggot is required to shit and flame all over anyone who likes different thing than them.

Gothninja: also known as goofninja, goofnigger, gothnigger or any variation thereof. A nebulous term used to describe a cluster of long and drapey man-gowns, tights, skirts, and capes presented exclusively in black and grey. Sneaky looking. Championed by designers like Yohji Yamamoto and Dick Ovens. Popular among them weaboo kids that watch the animes. Expect to pay at least 400 of your parents dollars for a long t-shirt and 1200 for sneakers. Sneakers mandatory (ninjas need them for sneaking). The typical ninja loves to pretend to be black like their god, ASAP ROCKY, and therefore say 'fuccboi' a lot. Strong artistic pretensions despite never having produced anything themselves. HIGH FASHION LOL


Dadcore: A term that was forced into /fa/'s lexicon through a month long spam campaign in the summer of 2012. While the term was apparently coined to mock failed menswear of the type which YOUR DAD might wear, it now denotes anything and everything that involves a shirt with buttons. Seriously. Thus, everything from #menswear, to workwear, to americana is dadcore. DON'T HATE ME CAUSE I'M NORMAL

>>5943554

2/2


#menswear: Menswear of the tumblar variety. Blazers, pocket squares, double monks with no socks, moustache wax, tortoise-shell sunglasses. The object is to look like a homosexual middle-aged Italian with gobs of money to spend on tailoring, and nothing to do but ride bicycles and smoke cigarillos. Typically a white suburban teen with aspergers, just like everyone else on /fa/. SPREZZATURA AS FUCK

hypebeast/swagfag: (under-aged) teens with an overabundance of heavily branded, overpriced and "exclusive" clothing from companies with big red box logos. May or may not have pretended to own a skateboard at some point. Ballcaps abound in both five panel and snapback varieties. Also says 'fuccboi' a lot. U FUCCBOIS WISH U HAD MAD SWAG LIKE ME FO REALS

Raws, CDB, and OCBD: Raw jeans, Clarks Desert boots and an Oxford Cloth button-down shirt. The most basic of basic outfits. The cheap, simple and easy answer when anyone clueless asks /fa/ for fashion advice, though they will be immediately mocked if they actually wear it. Qualifies as dadcore for reasons stated above. Because the worst insult that /fa/ can think up is not trying hard enough.

Workwear: Also known as heritage/americana. Involves tough manly things like rugged old-fashion work boots, flannel, 40 oz raw denim jeans, and posing with woodaxes. Despite looking like a lumberjack, the typical adherent of this style has never worked a day in their lives.

>>5943554
DenimDan wrote that actually.

>>5943561
really?

>>5943554
>HIGH FASHION LOL

>>5943568
check the history for the article

>>5943568
Yeah, Dan maintains the ED page for /fa/.

>>5943554

The definition for dadcore is actually very accurate lol

>>5943559
>>5943554

What kind of smug piece of shit wrote this? I mean, the descriptions are fine, but the stupid ass remarks at the end make me want to bore a hole in my crotch. Why do people try so hard to be edgy/funny?

>>5943598
I don't think you understand what ED is.

Everything there is within ED style guidelines.

Interesting thread OP, this makes me bring up another question I've always had.

>In fashion and art, everything is subjective because everyone likes different things and have different tastes and ways of expressing themselves.

>That said, is there something such as 'Objectively Bad' Fashion? I mean, if the person's outfit looks like shit but they are actually trying and think that looks good, is it really completely 'Objectively' bad? What defines objective?

K maybe I'm just overthinking lel plz teach me some knowledge ima read ima read ima read

>>5943598
>What kind of smug piece of shit wrote this?

This guy.

He holds a grudge against /fa/ and anything he doesn't like. Note how the gothninja part is long and full of that shit while the dadcore one (his style) is just very short and aimed at the posters and not the style

>>5943632

Wow, now it all makes sense.

The difference is that goth ninja is pretty much only suitable for a certain body type.

You can look like ryan gosling in dadcore so long as you've got the posture

>>5943656
>this is what mfaers actually beleive

#fatacceptance
#curvesarebeautiful

fuck you. we'll use it however we want dadcore faggot. you can't define slang into neat little boxes and hope it stays that way forever. words are constantly changing and taking on new meanings and you can't just stop progress whenever we reach a point you're happy with. we'll murder and distort the meaning however we want, just like we did it to literally and ironic.

>>5943661
huehueue

>>5943617
If you deny objective truth, you deny the existence of things being objectively bad or good.

So no bad art, and no good art.

No bad fashion, and no good fashion.


But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as incompetent fashion. Or people that aren't even trying to fashion.

Sort of like how monkey jesus here isn't 'bad art' but it is certainly the result of incompetence.

There's a flip-side though. There's unintentional art. Art that succeeds despite the incompetence of it's creator. Or art that exists despite the non-artistic intentions of its creator.

So this applies to stuff like found poems and a lot of pop art.
Another way to look at is that there is no art. Only text and textual analysis. And the back of a cereal box is just as much worth interpreting as James Joyce. The only difference is that the complexity of Joyce lends itself well to repeated creative interpretation over the years, whereas you'll probably run out of things to say about the cereal box in an afternoon.

>>5943686
nobody cares

youre shitt

>>5943632
I tried to be relatively neutral and shit on everyone equally.

>>5943632
but dadcore is split into sub categories. They add up to more words than gothninja....

>>5943692
*you're

>>5943694
gothninja has sub categories 2

>>5943710
Sorry, I don't see them.

>>5943686
which explains why u wrote off "goob" as baby shit and shit on anyone who used "dadcore" rather than the actual style

>>5943718
Well imo how I see it is
>'Street' part of the aesthetic (High tops leather jackets etc think asap rocky although it's a shitty example)
>'Traditional' menswear with a dark touch, suiting with elongated or exaggerated silhouettes and distressed dress shoes and large brim circle hats and stuff of that sort
>Total hobo goth mode drapes everywhere layers on layers on layers and balaclavas and other crazy shit

>>5943661
stop trying to post like twerk

>>5943662
>literally
>ironic
Fuck you shits. There's progression, and then there's corruption like this. Makes me want to become a language purist.

why are people so upset about what some guy wrote on some website?

>>5943741
>baby shit
huh?

>>5943679
That was alot to take in at once because I suck at understanding this kind of stuff but thanks for your response, saved and noted

someone make a DenimDan article

>>5943754
>twerk it invented hashtags

>>5943632
I don't think any real or perceived bias in that stuff comes down to Denim Dan hating gothninja. But when "dadcore" was coined, everything that wasn't very obviously gothninja was getting called out. Everyone that wasn't contributing to it was getting tired of the shitposting last summer.

>>5943782
You responded to the wrong post

>>5943748
Yes but the entry on ED isn't about the actual fashion. It's about the cliques and the labels that go with them.

ED chronicles internet drama and give people ammunition to troll internet stereotypes.

It's no supposed to be an accurate depiction of anything.

>>5943769
nice strawman i notice that you do this alot

>>5943777
okay dan

>>5943788
just wait a few minutes and he'll fuck up samefagging again

or some trip nobod has ever seen comes up to his aid

>>5943741
Everyone should be doing that. Dadcore isn't ever going to be useful jargon for /fa/ because there's always going to be those shitposters that use it to call out everything that isn't gothninja.

A community gives the meaning to a word. One person shouting alone that irony only means "The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention" isn't going to convince people to stop using it like an Alanis Morisette song. Y-You guys, you're using the word wrong. S-Stop it! Fuck you faggot. We'll keep using it to describe your GQ magazine and J.Crew Catalog looks and you're going to like it.

>>5943784
So you're going to play that way eh. Dan's an incorrigible samefag, so I suppose it's to be expected, but he's hardly the only one here that grew tired of the spamming last year.

>>5943788
Sorry?
>>5943784
Wasn't me
>>5943777
I don't hate gothninja as a genre. Many of the users that champion it annoy me though.

I've been pretty open about the fact that I'd like to get a piece or two and incorporate it into my wardrobe. Maybe a hoodie or something.

Guys I think you missed the point of the thread
point was to respect other aesthetics
not discussing the accurate definition of 'dadcore' and 'gothninja'
op fucked up a bit by putting that as pic but u get the idea
2 many ppl dismiss everything they don't like and label it with dadcore swagfag gothninja
it needz2stop

>>5943800
>I don't hate gothninja as a genre.
I know champ. That's why I didn't say you did.

>>5943802
Honestly, I think that infographic isn't so bad. Whoever wrote it is wrong about what dadcore meant and currently means on /fa/, but I think plenty of us not on the gothninja and swag gravy trains would support the jargon if it only applied to those who post poorly conceived fits instead of everything in the infographic.

>>5943802
if slater were here he'd set everyone straight.

He was always a vocal supporter of /fa/ being a place where disparate ideas could meet.

That used to be the case. I'm not saying there wasn't arguments or trolling or whatever. But it went around evenly. There was a balance of power.


Lately there's been a bloc of namefags and tripfags that have been hiveminding and circle jerking together. It's thrown everything out of whack.

>>5943802

This.

>>5943822
>Lately there's been a bloc of namefags and tripfags that have been hiveminding and circle jerking together. It's thrown everything out of whack.

yep and the ones who actually do know stuff like twerk don't really care about the status / quality of the board, they just drop knowledge and leave it for the ones who will get it and don't care too much about influencing the 'lost cause' group of posters

>>5943554
It's so true.

>>5943822
>if slater were here he'd set everyone straight.

How about you complain less and lead by example? Other people won't always be there to change reality to your liking, you know.

If you don't like what this batch of trips is doing, why don't you start tripping or something and start setting things straight? What's stopping you?

>>5943913
not that guy but i don't trip because it attracts too much unneeded attention and i'd feel pretentious doing it when i still have lots to learn
but that said there are a few trips here who make me wonder why they trip other than the blatantly obvious fact that they need attention like basedprophet

>>5943913
>implying I don't already trip

>>5943930
>i want this board to be "better" but im not willing to put any effort into helping

fuck off

if u honestly think fashion is some venn diagram between dadcore, streetwear and gothninja u need to stop posting
where does patrik ervell fit into this shitty paradigm?

>>5943935
What's your opinion on the shitposting namefag bloc?

>>5943943
theres shitty namefags theres shitty anons

nothing to have an opinion on

>>5943930
>not that guy but i don't trip because it attracts too much unneeded attention and i'd feel pretentious doing it when i still have lots to learn

you know, having a tripcode doesn't have to be some kind of fucking prize for knowing a lot. everyone has a lot to learn. I think having a trip makes you more accountable for your posts. I know that if I started tripping the quality of what I posted would improve because I would want to be known as someone who didn't shitpost or w/e.

on the other hand having a trip also would put me under more pressure to go along with what people said so that I wouldn't be ostracized so that would be pretty shitty I guess.

anyway I just think the whole attitude of "if you have a trip it means you are a super special sultan fashionista" is idiotic. there's other reasons to trip besides credibility.

Just use a 4chan anonymizer if you hate trips so bad. Turns everyone into anonymous and you have to judge everyone by the content of their post with no past history or identity attached. Better than filtering.

>>5943950
>having a trip makes you more accountable for your posts

Bingo.

>>5943977

>you have to judge everyone by the content of their post with no past history or identity attached

you can do this yourself too

I guess the real issue is, everyone else won't.

see:

>>5943632
>>5943561
>>5943568
>>5943647

inb4 I'm denim dan

>>5943512

Fashion isn't based on the inherent characteristics of an outfit or the pieces, it is contextual and depends on shared experiences. Controversial fashion by design draws a box around people and labels them as insiders or outsiders. Outsiders are targets to be challenged to observed. Insiders are brethren to impress and be impressed by.

OP is attempting to subvert this paradigm by creating another layer of insiders and outsiders within the outsider set. Outsiders who don't conform are "plebs" who are too petty and small to understand the "patrician master race." Once set in motion self-enforcing societal controls will bring outsiders in line in worship of their glorious /fa/ overlords.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on where you stand, the rest of the world rolls on without a thought for Soccer Mom at the P TA-esq machinations in the tiny corner of the armpit of the Internet.

>>5943950
i was actually thinking the other day that /fa/ might be better if everyone had to trip. i'm wondering how a conventional fashion forum would stack up against /fa/ on that account.

so many anons on here just shit on other people's fits and when they get called out to post their's they either troll or ghost. if we all had names there'd at least be some accountability.

>>5944149
tripping leads to circle jerks that corrupt absolutely

>>5944149
just ask people to expand on their criticism rather than just posting 'you look like shit fuccboi' like saying the color clashes with your outfit and skin color and makes you look washed out or your pants are too baggy in the thigh area and makes you look like you're wearing hammer pants or your boots have too bulbous of an appearance that they look like clown shoes.

>>5944162
homosexual should be in all the sections

>>5944169

circlejerking happens whether there's a tripcode or not, it's a fact of life

>>5944149

Conventional forum boards exist but I'm just as glad for the existence of 4chan. There is a different dynamic with the lack of post counts, threads only lasting a day, and easy anonymity or adoption of identities. It's interesting because shared ideas exist in a communal continuity that changes as people come and go.

>>5944131
+1
Well said.

>>5943852
>raf simons
>gothninja

he's surrealist grandpacore you pleb

>>5943935
I've helped plenty unlike you
All you do it shitpost and assume a fake identity
Country ass boy

how did this thread go from respecting other styles to defining slang to tripfag discussion

>>5944131
Hello I am OP, interesting to see where this thread went lol some good points and stuff here

Although I don't understand the second part of this post. I don't see where I said anything about people not being interested in fashion are 'plebs' too petty to understand the 'patrician master race' unless I'm reading / comprehending this wrong

>>5944673

I was engaging in hyperbole to draw attention to similar behavior that I see floating around, the difference between your post and those is a matter of degree rather then kind. Your assertion, while reasonable, is a deflection. Rather then arguing based on merit (which I'll admit sometimes devolves into playground "Yes it is!" "No it's not!") your argument attempts to change the context of the issue.

"Its not that it's ugly and has no value, you just don't understand it." It simultaneously excludes dissenters while inviting them to joined the enlightened. It is like sports or games, the value only exists for those you are already prepared to place value in it, the difference is that "ugly fashion" actively attempts to involve the uninvolved.

Ugly fashion is like the person at a party who brings up polarizing topics and takes an unapologetically controversial stance and derives pleasure from the active discussion that makes other people uncomfortable. Now this is a fashion board so it is entirely appropriate to discuss it here but if you were to bring up the same discussion in mixed company you may encounter an entirely different reaction. Similarly some people (myself included to some degree) who refer to themselves as advocates of 'style' take a more pragmatic approach to fashion, characterized by the refusal to play the fashion game. This in itself is also a deflection of sorts as we try to exclude fashionistas in an attempt to ingratiate ourselves with the 'normals'.

>>5943512
>anime autist clothes

>>5944906
10/10 would read again

>>5944906
i don't really follow your last paragraph. i just don't see what's so rude about kitsch.

>>5944941
Depends on your definition of rudeness.
I don't find John Waters movies offensive either, but you can't watch one and tell me he's not out to stir up some shit and troll the squares.

>>5944954
the rules of polite society do not apply to squares, at least not to the one who hold their squareness as a virtue

>>5944941

It isn't really rude per say, again hyperbole. However ugly fashion attempts to generate discordance and discomfort like an other action that is inappropriate to the situation or context. It is reasonable for similar reactions to occur in both situations. However that is the point behind ugly fashion isn't it? If you are going to privilege artistic freedom over social convention that type of reactions are to be expected.

>>5944984
but the distinction is totally arbitrary. i don't think that thom browne look is ugly.

>>5944960

Yes but I wouldn't expect to argue the virtues of squareness based on it's contrarian nature. If anything I might be tempted to prize exclusion as veracity of my authenticity (although that has it's own can of worms.)

>>5944995
you lost me

>>5944988

Aesthetics is based on societal context as much as mathematics principals, but I wouldn't agree that it is arbitrary.

The other thing to remember that even the most advant garde designer still has a very strong grounding in classical design and aesthetics. Very few things they create will be truly ugly.

>>5945026
yes, rick is very classical. i'm not following your point. why does it matter to me if someone is hatin on my rick steelo? why does it become my fault for dressing a certain way and not their fault for being a busybody? assuming that i'm not interviewing for a job with them, what the fuck else matters?

>>5943942
It's pretty obvious that Patrik Ervell would be on the dadcore side of things.

>>5944149
Look at superfuture. There's not a ton more accountability and there's a ton of people that circle jerk rep shitty fits up and neg good fits down.

>>5945079
is this dadcore?

>>5944181
They're not going to oblige. Beside, the average poster saying that sort of thing would need the barest modicum of fashion insight before they could expand on their criticisms.

>>5944182

it is, dumbass.

>>5944998

not missing much. just another masturbatorily verbose dickhead in love with his own intellect. guy must be the life of every party.

>>5945034

It doesn't have to matter, I'm not telling you to differently you can dress however you want. I'm discussing the mechanism of controversial art as it relates to fashion per OPs assertion.

>>5944182
>how does I venn diagram

>>5944182
damn son how bad is life not passing the 4th grade

>>5944205
He's really just straight dadcore. He also happens to be well loved by a lot of self identifying gothninjas. Reason for the dichotomy to dissolve that much quicker, I figure.

>>5945026
>societal context
>mathematical principals
It's only based on the former. That we as a society have decided to incorporate some math into our idea of aesthetics does not mean this incorporation is true across all societies.

>>5945086
If we're working with our silly little dichotomy as a frame, then yes, because it's certainly not gothninja.

>>5945108
the dichotomy doesn't exist anywhere outside of new posters on /fa/

At the end of givenchy mw ss 13 u can get a glimpse of kanye in the front row

>>5945124
If by "new" you mean everyone that bought into the trolling that started last summer. In any case, it accounts for a very large percentage of /fa/ posters.

>>5945127
but we're not working w/ a dichotomy
patrik ervell and countless others are proof that the dichotomy is bs spewed by people that only know 5 designers

>>5945119

Of course not, but aesthetics do seem to have some universality with a mathematical basis. The golden ratio and color theory shows up in cultures all over the world.

>>5945152
Well yeah, I just thought we were playing the "shoehorn this designer into one of two categories" game. And of course the dichotomy found it's genesis with people who don't know much about fashion. That describes almost all of /fa/. But at least the fallout has seemed to raise the general level of knowledge around here.

>>5945162
These universalizing tendencies come from not being able to recognize our own positionality. It's like when structuralists tried to distill every narrative into a set group of archetypes. Sure, I guess that's one way of looking at things, but I doubt aboriginal artists are going to admit loving the golden ratio when they probably have no historical frame of reference for it.

>>5945192
Some would argue there's a biological precedent for the golden ratio that's found all throughout the world in culture AND nature.

A historical reference point may not even be necessary, it's an important ratio for flowers, insects, seashells. Who's to say it's not wound deep into our own DNA? Perhaps it's an expression of the universe itself, nested concrescent spheres of complexity and influence. That sort of thing.

Ever see Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land?

>>5944906
post more often plz

>>5945192

We recognize it in our own body and the world around us. I'm not saying we were born with a sense of some absolute of beauty, I'm saying we recognize them in ourselves and our proportions.

>>5945233
Edit to add:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM&feature=player_detailpage#t=168s

>>5945138
I think you're in the wrong thread, friend.

>>5945249
Sure, but that doesn't me the relationship between people and the environment can't differ radically. Granted, with globalization, we are all of us slowly drifting together on this topic.

>>5945233
>Ever see Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land?

I haven't. But my point wasn't that these things don't exist throughout nature. I was merely saying that how one reacts do the golden ratio depends upon a whole host of cultural factors which can differ from culture to culture and which are always developed in a distinct historical paradigm.

>>5945350
But if the ratio is present everywhere in nature all over the world, isn't it inevitable that at some point local cultures will make the connection?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM&feature=player_detailpage#t=653s

>>5945387
that fucking picture i am so done oh my god

>>5945387
Make what connection? That the golden ratio is an elegant design solution for objects in the physical world? This seems likely, particularly as a society begins to produce more feats of architecture. That the golden ratio is beautiful because of this elegance? Maybe. Maybe not. It's entirely dependent on cultural opinions. There is no reason to think that just because something is observable by many cultures that these cultures will share the same perspective on it.

>>5945108
no he isn't..

>>5945409
Fair enough.

>>5945387
>that pic
is this real? I can't stop laughing.

>>5945432
yeah man, it's from Ebony.

>>5945409

It's possible that they are showing up in all these cultures as a coincidence but I don't think that is likely. We find the golden ratio in the proportions of pottery, boxes, baskets and other containers. We find it in architecture even in primitive construction. We find it in art, clothing, and other artifacts. We must be cautious of confirmation bias but most of the occurrences are easily found in the proportions of man made objects as well as natural objects. We find the golden ratio in human proportions as well which is why is one proposed reason for why we find it pleasing to see in other objects.

>>5945804
But this only gets us to the first conclusion I make. The golden ratio is an elegant design solution. It makes sense that we should see it occurring in various places. But this doesn't mean we can just make the leap to the second conclusion and claim that the golden ratio is foundational to all aesthetics.

>>5943818
>Honestly, I think that infographic isn't so bad.
They've still tried to pass some dadcore under the radar with those trust fund yuppies. They look like they've literally raided daddy's wardrobe.

>>5946006
I guess you're entering into the nature/nurture debate then, and there's no real hard and fast answers to that.

All I can tell you beyond that point is a muddle of non-empirical feels, but I do think that any organizational principle so readily visible throughout nature is likely to be embedded into the mechanics of our own brains in some way.

>>5946006

No, we can't prove causation based on the golden ratio, this is social science not natural science. There is a large body of evidence that humans universally use it in design even when they don't haven't any reasoned preference for it. Nor do I believe is it the sole foundation for aesthetics, culturally we display preferences based on a variety of other factors.

Held to the same standard of rigor, your previous assertion that beauty only has societal context is unsupported. That the golden ratio appears in design in so many cultures that developed independently would suggests that societal context can't be the sole determinant of beauty.

So going back to my original statement "Aesthetics is based on societal context as much as mathematics principals."

>>5943512
hey OP
good post